Children in Need

It is often said that the UK is addicted to the cult of the amateur (my wife shouts loudly the "hamster"). We would both argue that the National Lottery and Children in Need showcase this. The ruling elite (at least in England) have worked out that clever use of the media holds the mass in the perpetual grip of a sop culture (completely eclipsing anything the Church or the Commies ever achieved). Who noticed last night being hailed as "the greatest night of the year"? Of course these were all deserving causes. But our filthy rich nation has decided these good causes should not be funded by taxation but by charity. A whole series of essentially short term fixes which do help people but also enable the population to feel good and to have a good night out. Why is'nt everything Children in Need achieves being quietly funded by the nation without any fuss? Because in British mentality, government is to be distrusted and individual amateurism and voluntary effort applauded. So because the nation was busy texting funds to CIN (that was the Twitter hash tag (THINK ABOUT IT), I pay palled the Red Cross in respect of the Philipines.

I guess many might be upset to read all this but please answer this simple question: was there anything in Children In Need which was a luxury and not a neccessity? Was the project to give British childen decent beds to sleep in dispensible? Do you want a wealthy country were we need volunteer effort to give our children the most basic of necessities? Someone will say "what were you doing watching this you grump"? I have a 13 year old daughter for whom it was indispensable viewing.